Serializability of nested transactions in multidatabases

  • Ugur Halici
  • Budak Arpinar
  • Asuman Dogac
Contributed Papers Session 6: Concurrency Control
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1186)


The correctness of nested transactions for multidatabases differs from that of flat transactions in that, for nested transactions the execution order of siblings at each related site should also be consistent. In this paper we first propose a simple but powerful theory for the serializability of nested transactions in multidatabases and then a technique called Nested Tickets Method for Nested Transactions (NTNT). The NTNT technique provides correctness of nested transactions in multidatabases without violating the local autonomy of the participating DB-MSs. The algorithm is fully distributed, in other words there is no central scheduler. The correctness of the NTNT technique is proved by using the developed theory.


Concurrency Control Transaction Management Local Scheduler Local Transaction Global Transaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [BBG 89]
    C. Beeri, P. A. Bernstein, and N. Goodman. A Model for Concurrency in Nested Transaction Systems. Journal of the ACM, 36(2), 1989.Google Scholar
  2. [BGS 92]
    Y. Breitbart, H. Garcia-Molina, and A. Silberschatz. Overview of Multidatabase Transaction Management. VLDB Journal, 1(2), 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [BHG 87]
    P. A. Bernstein, V. Haclzilacos, and N. Goodman. Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. [BOH 92]
    A. Buchman, M. T. Ozsu, M. Hornick, D. Georgakopulos, and F. A. Manola. A Transaction Model for Active Distributed Object Systems. In A. K. Elmagarmid (Ed.), Database Transaction Models for Advanced Applications, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA., 1992.Google Scholar
  5. [CR 91]
    P. K. Chrysanthis, and K. Ramamritham. A Formalism for Extended Transaction Models. In Proc. of the 17th Int. Conf. on VLDB, Barcelona, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [DAO 95]
    A. Dogac, M. Altinel, C. Ozkan, B. Arpinar, I. Durusoy, and I. Altintas. METU Object-Oriented DBMS Kernel. In Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Database and Expert Systems Applications, London, Sept. 1995, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. [DDK 96]
    A. Dogac, C. Dengi, E. Kilic, G. Ozhan, F. Ozean, S. Nural, C. Evrendilek, U. Halici, B. Arpinar, P. Koksal, and S. Mancuhan. METU Interoperable Database System. Demo Description, In Proc. of ACM Sigmod Intl. Conf. on Man. of Data, Montreal, June 1996.Google Scholar
  8. [DEO 96]
    A. Dogac, C. Dengi, and T. Ozsu. Building Interoperable Databases on Distributed Object Management Platforms. Communications of the ACM (to appear).Google Scholar
  9. [ELLR 90]
    A.K. Elmagarmid, Y. Leu, W. Litwin, and M. Rusinkiewicz. A Multidatabase Transaction Model for Interbase. In Proc. of the 16th VLDB Conf., Brisbane, Australia, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [GR 93]
    J. Gray, and A. Reuter. Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. [GRS 94]
    D. Georgakopoulos, M. Rusinkiewicz, and A. P. Sheth. Using Tickets to Enforce the Serializability of Multidatabase Transactions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 6(1), 1994.Google Scholar
  12. [HD 89]
    U. Halici, and A. Dogac. Concurrency Control in Distributed Databases Through Time Intervals and Short Term Locks. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15(8), August 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [HD 91]
    U. Halici, and A. Dogac. An Optimistic Locking Technique for Concurrency Control in Distributed Databases. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 17(7), July 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [HR 93]
    T. Harder, and K. Rothermel. Concurrency Control Issues in Nested Transactions. VLDB Journal, 2(1), 1993.Google Scholar
  15. [HFBK 94]
    G. Huck, P. Fankhauser, R. Busse, and W. Klas. IRO-DB: An Object-Oriented Approach towards Federated and Interoperable DBMS. In Proc. of ADBIS'94, Moscow, May 1994.Google Scholar
  16. [M 85]
    J. E. B. Moss. An Approach to Reliable Distributed Computing. MIT Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  17. [OMG 91]
    Object Management Group. The Common Object Request Broker: Architecture and Specification. OMG Document, December 1991.Google Scholar
  18. [OMG 94]
    Object Transaction Service. OMG Document, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. [SWS 91]
    H.-J. Schek, G. Weikum, and W. Schaad, A Multi-Level Transaction Approach to Federated DBS Transaction Management. In Proc. of Int. Workshop on Interoperability in Multidatabase Systems, Kyoto. 1991.Google Scholar
  20. [W 91]
    G. Weikum. Principles and Realization Strategies of Multilevel Transaction Management ACM TODS, 16(1), 1991.Google Scholar
  21. [ZE 93]
    A. Zhang, and A. K. Elmagarmid. Theory of Global Concurrency Control in Multidatabase Systems. VLDB Journal 2(3), 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ugur Halici
    • 1
  • Budak Arpinar
    • 2
  • Asuman Dogac
    • 2
  1. 1.Software Research and Development Center Dept. of Electrical EngineeringMiddle East Technical University (METU)AnkaraTurkiye
  2. 2.Software Research and Development Center Dept. of Computer EngineeringMiddle East Technical University (METU)AnkaraTurkiye

Personalised recommendations